[email protected] wrote:
Quoting Florian Weimer ([email protected]):
* Janak Desai:
With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
management functions without patching individual commands.
I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well
Note that this patch is not removing the CAP_SYS_ADMIN requirement,
just allowing the operation to happen outside of clone(). Unlike
domain transitions in selinux, which should be tied to exec() so
as to tie them to known code, I don't see what clone() would provide
in terms of safety which we are losing.
without its original specification. Clearly the current situation
sucks, but this is mainly a lack of PAM functionality, IMHO.
I'm not sure this is to do with PAM functionality, rather than
just its design. Is there a way of "fixing" pam so that we don't
need unshare()?
I have been trying to narrow down the problem since Alan's post
about using clone() instead of unshare. The problem comes down to
parent, on _exit(), clobbering controlling tty. I have tried, from
the child, to close and open the tty stored in PAM but that has
not helped.
-Janak
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |